Supreme Court: "Victims of the 'Japanese Student Spy Fabrication Case' Must Also Be Compensated for Being Wanted"

Court: "All Cases Constitute Serious Human Rights Violations and Fabrication Suspicions"

Victims who were forcibly taken and investigated on charges of espionage activities along with Jang Ui-gyun, a long-term non-repatriated prisoner, have won a final victory in a damages lawsuit against the state.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 9th that it overturned the lower court's partial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the damages claim lawsuit filed by 15 people including Mr. A against the state, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Mr. Jang was taken to the National Security Planning Department without an arrest warrant in July 1987 on suspicion of espionage activities after contacting the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon) during his time as a Japanese exchange student. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison.

Mr. A was placed on a wanted list in November 1993 for being involved in the fabricated espionage case of Mr. Jang, the Japanese exchange student, and was taken into custody by the Agency for National Security Planning upon his return to Korea in May 1998. The prosecution decided to suspend prosecution against Mr. A.

In response, Mr. A filed a damages lawsuit against the state, claiming that the investigation announcement and distribution of press releases, illegal detention, being placed on the wanted list, and the suspension of prosecution were unjust. The first and second trials found that the investigation announcement, distribution of press releases, and illegal detention were unlawful. However, they ruled that being placed on the wanted list and the suspension of prosecution could not be considered illegal exercises of public authority.

Furthermore, the second trial acknowledged that the illegal detention was unlawful but ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, so the state was not liable for compensation.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment was different. The court stated, "The investigation announcement, distribution of press releases, and the wanted list against the plaintiff, all based on evidence collected through illegal methods such as unlawful detention and harsh treatment, can be evaluated as collectively unlawful as part of the investigation process."

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the lower court's ruling that the statute of limitations had expired only for the illegal detention was incorrect. The court ruled, "Since the investigation announcement, distribution of press releases, wanted list, and illegal detention against the plaintiff all constitute parts of a serious human rights violation and fabricated case, it is inappropriate to exclude only some parts from the application of the Past Affairs Settlement Act."

Meanwhile, according to the Constitutional Court's 2018 decision, the statute of limitations under civil law does not apply to the state compensation claims of victims of serious human rights violations and fabricated cases.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.